Back

Benchmarking Geometric Morphometric Methods: A Performance Evaluation for Gastropod Shell Shape Analyses

Carmelet-Rescan, D.; Malmqvist, G.; Kumpitsch, L.; Sammarco, B.; Choo, L. Q.; Butlin, R.; Raffini, F.

2026-02-24 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.02.23.707480 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Understanding morphological variation is crucial for the study of speciation and for conservation as it helps in assessing biodiversity and predicting responses to environmental changes. These approaches are broadly applicable but are especially valuable in marine environments, where species are often elusive, difficult to study, and face heightened threats from rapid environmental shifts. The marine snail Littorina saxatilis is notable for its extensive polymorphism in shell shape, size, and colour, with ecotypes that evolve in response to environmental forces including wave exposure and crab predation. Morphometric tools have been central to investigating the mechanisms driving this phenotypic divergence; yet, a direct comparison of their methodological efficacy is lacking. Here, we took advantage of L. saxatilis ecotypes to contrast three morphometric approaches: elliptical Fourier analysis (EFA), landmarks-based geometric morphometrics (GM), and the growth-based model implemented in the ShellShaper software (SS). We assessed their clustering power, biological interpretability, robustness to measurement error and transferability among datasets. Our findings provide insights to guide method selection in studies aimed at exploring morphological variation: EFA is better suited for high-throughput screening and describing intermediate shapes; SS offers superior clustering power with highly interpretable growth parameters; and GM is best for detailed anatomical studies but is less efficient for large datasets. We provide guidelines to align method selection with specific research goals, balancing analytical efficiency with the required morphological and biological insight. By following this framework, researchers can ensure that robust morphological analysis is achieved, which is essential not only for elucidating mechanisms of adaptation and speciation but also for effective management and conservation of marine biodiversity.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.1%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.1%
3
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
5
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.2%
6
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
8
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.3%
11
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
12
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.0%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
14
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
Evolutionary Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
21
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.7%
25
Systematic Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
26
Journal of Fish Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
27
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
28
Ethology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
29
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%